Slanderous tweets prove costly to a Kuwaiti writer.

Share this story

Kuwaiti writer Mohammed Al-Mulaifi was sentenced to seven years of hard labor in prison yesterday for slander and defamation against the country's Shi'ite minority on his Twitter account. He said members of the country's Shi'ite Muslim minority were loyal to foreign countries due to their alleged foreign origin. He was also fined US$18,000.

Kuwait is split 70/30 between its Sunni and Shi'ite citizens. It has laws that forbid the maligning of either expression of Islam.

The Kuwait Times said, "Al-Mulaifi was accused of broadcasting untrue news on his Twitter blog about the existence of racial and sectarian division within the Kuwaiti community, and of accusing some citizens of affiliations to foreign countries. Al-Mulaifi was found guilty of undermining the Shiite doctrine and insulting Shiite scholars."

He was also charged for his accusations that Kuwaiti parliamentarian Ahmed Lari was of non-Kuwaiti origin and for slandering a Shi'ite religious figure, Imam Al-Mahdi.

The court's statement said he was convicted because he communicated "falsehoods about sectarian divisions" in Kuwait via Twitter and because he "insulted the Shiite faith and its scholars." His tweets, said the ruling, "damaged Kuwait's image."

Al-Mulaifi was arrested in February after Shi'ite Kuwaitis, including members of the government, vociferously protested his tweets.

Twitter is popular in Kuwait, as it is in the rest of the Gulf States. Kuwait is not alone in seeing a surprising number of its users get in trouble for their tweets, usually statements of a religious nature. In neighboring Saudi Arabia, Hamza Kashgari tweeted statements that inspired public anger, which was in turn fanned by internal political elements resentful of the liberalization of the country. Kashgari was intercepted in Malaysia after fleeing the kingdom in fear.

Not all Kuwaitis support the sentence. Kuwait Times reported that international lawyer and arbitrator Labeed Abdal is calling on the Kuwaiti Government to clarify the limit of the rights and freedom of expression.

"Interpretation must be thoroughly studied and properly identified," said Abdal, "In [Al-Mulaifi's] case, they are mixing it with personality and politics. Also, punishment must be adjusted to the crime committed."

Share this story

Curt Hopkins
Curt writes for Ars Technica about the intersection of culture and technology, including the democratization of information, spaceships, robots, the theatre, archaeology, achives and free speech. Twitter@curthopkins

95 Reader Comments

Such irony. This is like a microcosm of why the East fell and the West rose to become the dominant power in the world during the 17/18th centuries (specifically relating to the Ottoman empire and the choice of splitting church and state).

At least, until China takes control of everything...bow down to your new lords and masters infidels! XD/flame

PS: The comments on this page are as nasty and narrow-minded as usual. Would it be too much trouble to verify the things you hear before echoing them.

I'm an atheist, and frankly I agree with you that a lot of comments on page are very narrow minded. We should have more tolerance for each other.

OT, here's a story I love. During an unusually long cold winter, up in a high top monastery, the monks are freezing and they're running out of fire wood. Then one monk took an axe to a wooden statue of Buddha to make firewood. The other monks were shocked and tried to stop him. To which he asked them, "Is this piece of wood Buddha? This is nothing more then a relic that help you concentrate on Buddha's teachings. And that if you hold this value more than what it is, you have failed to understand Buddha's teachings.

Raptor wrote:

real_dave wrote:

The guy was jailed because he said things that could have lead to national instability similar to that which happened in bahrain. The government simply took steps to protect its national security.

That strongly suggests the country has underlying problems that are so significant that jailing a twitter user isn't going to prevent, let alone solve them.

Of course, that part of the world have underlying problems that need addressing. However, you must start somewhere...it's helpful if stop both sides from spewing non-sense and inciting each other. It will create an environment where both sides can calmly think about it.

The very idea of "limits" on free speech renders the adjective irrelevant. "Hate" speech, holocaust denial, libel, slander, homophobic/racist/xenophobic rants, rumors, obscenity, proselytizing, mockery are all kinds of speech. Countries that only allow some kinds of speech, and criminalize the rest cannot claim to be protectors of free speech, only acceptable speech. The situation in Kuwait is ridiculous, but the rest of the world is hardly a bastion of free speech.

Like Chomsky said, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like...."

I grow extremely weary of "political correctness." It tries to make it unacceptable for me to call a society which would allow such travesties ass backwards. Well, eat it PC. That's ass fucking backwards.

The very idea of "limits" on free speech renders the adjective irrelevant.

So nowhere has free speech then.

With regards to this case I would say the length of sentence is the only thing about this that could be described as unreasonable (given its libel/hate speech) - but surely that is an internal matter for Kuwait to figure out itself?

headfoot wrote:

I grow extremely weary of "political correctness." It tries to make it unacceptable for me to call a society which would allow such travesties ass backwards.

I think air-dropping metric tons of leaflets depicting Jesus giving Mohammad a blowjob while Vishnu, Moses, Mary and The Donkey have a well-oiled gang bang is the only way to illustrate how much sense this all makes.

Vishnu sez: "So many arms, so few orifices to fist!"

Its just a matter of respect. We dont have to agree on anything but it also doesnt mean we have to insult each other on anything.Insult people and their belief system and you reap a harvest of revenge from the seeds of hate you planted.And your wondering why these people aren't nice to you.Why does every disagreement whether about religious figures or politics etc have to degrade into a bunch of insults for any reason whatsoever?Is it some kind of sport?

A soft word can turn away wrath.

------------------------------OTHI agree that 7 years of hard labor is way too much.Won't one year of imprisonment and a 7 year ban on social messaging achieve the same desired results?

The very idea of "limits" on free speech renders the adjective irrelevant.

So nowhere has free speech then.

As far as I am concerned, no. One can only rank countries by degrees of freedom allowed, from most to least.

Eraserhead wrote:

With regards to this case I would say the length of sentence is the only thing about this that could be described as unreasonable (given its libel/hate speech) - but surely that is an internal matter for Kuwait to figure out itself?

It depends on what you consider to be the basis of morality and law, and their applicability. If law has its roots in morality, and absolute moral facts exist, then they hold true for all of humanity. The only other alternatives are:* jurisprudence and ethics are unrelated concepts.* moral relativism, or as Boghossian puts it, moral nihilism.

The very idea of "limits" on free speech renders the adjective irrelevant. "Hate" speech, holocaust denial, libel, slander, homophobic/racist/xenophobic rants, rumors, obscenity, proselytizing, mockery are all kinds of speech. Countries that only allow some kinds of speech, and criminalize the rest cannot claim to be protectors of free speech, only acceptable speech

That is the world we live in. Another example that shows that free speech is merely an idea and does not actually exist is how someone can be criminally convicted for making threats (especially physical ones). Not that I disagree with that. The media is also censored for political correctness so as not to make aspects offensive to others. Proponents of free speech seem to think that the countries we live in actually have it; they don't, it's merely an idea.

People in power (elected officials, monarchs, theocracies, CEO's of companies, etc) have a tendency to react harshly to perceived threats. When will we, the people, realise that the state moves to protect itself and will do against the people if the people threaten it? We see this in other countries and forget were the situation to arise here, the anti terrorism legislation would allow our own countries to achieve the same ends. We are not so different, in this regard, from anyone else.

It depends on what you consider to be the basis of morality and law, and their applicability. If law has its roots in morality, and absolute moral facts exist, then they hold true for all of humanity.

If the law has its roots in morality, its branches are far away from it. For example, how would you reconcile parking fines in terms of morality? That said, murder seems to be universally unlawful, as does theft. Some societies in the past did have a blood vengeance oath which could be invoked if somebody murdered someone else, similar to eye for an eye justice. Back to modern day and if the laws stopped at creating a code of ethics for a moral society, I think there would be far fewer of them!

Take a good look folks. This is what happens when religion and governments intersect. And is why Santorum scared, and still does, the living shit out of me.

No, this is what happens when you throw away free speech in persuit of some dream of people never offending people. As others have pointed out here, plenty of countries jail people for insulting non-religious minorities.

The very idea of "limits" on free speech renders the adjective irrelevant...

Another example that shows that free speech is merely an idea and does not actually exist is how someone can be criminally convicted for making threats (especially physical ones). Not that I disagree with that.

A "verbal" threat is speech, no doubt. The question, however, is, where can the hard line between speech and imminent action be drawn? Do we start by divining intentions (the slippery slope of thought-crime), or wait till the threat is acted upon? Is every I-will-kill-you an attempted murder? Then what about 12 Angry Men?

kingius wrote:

For example, how would you reconcile parking fines in terms of morality?

One cannot, because it is not an example of law, but of legislation.

There is a tendency among the ruling classes to avoid having to think deep on any subject. That is the reason legislation has come to be favored over common law. A diktat need not be justified, need not be right or wrong, or true or false, and because it is the "law," it must be followed whether you agree with it or not.

The late classical liberal and jurist Bruno Leoni wrote an extremely important book on the subject of freedom and its relationship to law. It's available on line at the Library of Liberty.

kingius wrote:

That said, murder seems to be universally unlawful, as does theft.

It depends on how you define murder and theft. If one man kills another man without provocation, it is murder. But if an army invades a country, it is war. The same goes for theft. The more immediate problem with abstracting over supposedly universal feelings is that it is an attempt to convert an "is" into an "ought."

kingius wrote:

Back to modern day and if the laws stopped at creating a code of ethics for a moral society, I think there would be far fewer of them!

It's not that. A moral society would have no need for a code of ethics. And a society without morals would have no need for it either. The sole responsibility of law is to determine what one human being may not do to another human being's person or property. Unfortunately, it has never been that way.

Its just a matter of respect. We dont have to agree on anything but it also doesnt mean we have to insult each other on anything.Insult people and their belief system and you reap a harvest of revenge from the seeds of hate you planted.

I will continue to insult any belief system that subjugates others for no valid reason, as codified in their non-negotiable texts.

If they want to honestly question their own dogma and reconsider changing or deleting the oppressive/violent parts then fine, let's have a rational conversation. Otherwise, you are asking me to accept whatever is written in the Torah/Bible/Quran/etc. unconditionally, forever and always, regardless of whatever harm it has and will continue to cause others.

Europe doesn't have freedom of speech either. I'm so glad the U.S. does. Saying you don't like a certain religion, nationality, language, etc, even as private speech or a blog, can get you jail time in the EU and UK. I birthday commemoration for Rudulf Hess won jail time in Germany. Hess was an ass, but that's my opinion, and the whole point of free speech is, well, FREE speech. Wow, I can't believe they have laws like that. A guy in the UK was arrested for writing that he was glad some soccer player had a heart attack.

I'm a supporter of eugenics. I don't aim it at any particular ethnicity, I think child poverty could be greatly reduced by making it illegal to have kids you can't support on your own income. My view is unpopular, and won't become law, but I can't imagine being charged criminally for writing that.

People are so odd. There's the rest of the Middle East, not tolerating each other at all, and Kuwait, while giving a rather extreme interpretation of the need for unity, at least made it known that they want no divisions of their own. I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution, but if all you see is intolerance, you're the ones I find odd.

It has little to do with actual religion, and more to do with totalitarian power. Totalitarian power that those on the left are more than happy to give the government, because they agree with the agenda. You call out religion (FYI, I am an atheist), but the dogma of the left is just as dangerous.

You do realize that totalitarian power and religion frequently overlap, right? It comes down to the whole "God called me to do this justification" I won't go into specific examples because that could easily lead a discussion off track, but its not hard to find them throughout history.

Jeez. How histrionic. I'm not Santorum's biggest fan, but would you care to link to something he's said or done to suggest he thinks it's appropriate to sentence people to hard labor for what saying something merely unflattering about someone's religion? (And no, it's not what happens when the two intersect. It's what happens when their relationship becomes "Identity", and even then, additional factors have to be in play as well)

If you can't see the parallels of the complete and utter **** he has outright said during the campaign, and what has happened in kuwaiti, there is absolutely NOTHING I could say to make you change your mind. I will say this though. Look up Santorum's thoughts on JFK. The man is a religious zealot. Period. Hence the parallels. I stand by my original statement: "This is what happens when religion and governments intersect".

Take a good look folks. This is what happens when religion and governments intersect. And is why Santorum scared, and still does, the living shit out of me.

Well said!

Yes, indeed, if you are looking for ignorance and stupidity these are wonderful comments.To the ignorance, religion and government have always intersected in the US. Most every social reform those on the left applaud had an intersection with religion and had a religious component. The civil rights movement is a prime example. No rational person would argue that religion's influence on the US has always been positive, but only irrational or ignorant religion haters would deny the many times it had a positive influence.

There is a long history within the democratic party of candidates going to speak to black churches. When republicans do this it is "pandering" and a potentially horrifying portent of things to come. So when do the problems occur? The problems occur when the GOVERNMENT tries to dictate to religion or individuals regarding freedom of speech. This is why the founders were so smart in LIMITING the government's power over religion and freedom of speech. To get to the particular example, I am unaware of Santorum, who I think is an idiot, has made any statements which indicate he advocates the government regulating religion or doing anything further to limit what people can say. Short of that, the punishment of the blogger in this story would not happen even if Santorum was president.

You don't like Santorum and his politics, great. Just stick to the facts of why you don't like him and spare us your boogeyman ramblings.

Its just a matter of respect. We dont have to agree on anything but it also doesnt mean we have to insult each other on anything.Insult people and their belief system and you reap a harvest of revenge from the seeds of hate you planted.And your wondering why these people aren't nice to you.Why does every disagreement whether about religious figures or politics etc have to degrade into a bunch of insults for any reason whatsoever?Is it some kind of sport?

I have to disagree completely. People don't have the right to respond with violence when someone disagrees with their point of view or even *gasp* insults them. People need to grow thicker skin and realize that they don't have a right not to be offended. That goes double for Muslims in the Middle East, who seem to think their religion takes precedence over my personal rights and that they can kill anyone who hurts their feelings.

Insult people and their belief system and you reap a harvest of revenge from the seeds of hate you planted.

This right here is why things are so messed up in the Middle East. That kind of attitude seems to be a mantra over there. Until people (from all nations) can get over themselves, their politics, and their religion for just one fucking second and not be so retributive, we might all be able to stop focusing on pissing contests and start focusing on real problems.

Until people (from all nations) can get over themselves, their politics, and their religion for just one fucking second and not be so retributive, we might all be able to stop focusing on pissing contests and start focusing on real problems.

Unfortunately, it's inter-generational and self-perpetuating, and by design ("inerrant word of God/Allah"), almost completely intractable.

The only way out is long-term education, but our species is currently demonstrating a stubborn abhorrence for long-term thinking.

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam.

For example, in Saudi Arabia, if you pick up a wallet that was dropped by someone, you can be charge with theft and get life in prison and have your arms cut off. This is why lost items are left on the ground.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

Take a good look folks. This is what happens when religion and governments intersect. And is why Santorum scared, and still does, the living shit out of me.

What Obama has done/is doing to the country doesn't scare you?

Care to explain the scary things he is doing/has done to America? I ask for examples because it seems to me the people who say this stuff tend to be oblivious to the actual troubling things and focus on their delusions.

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam.

For example, in Saudi Arabia, if you pick up a wallet that was dropped by someone, you can be charge with theft and get life in prison and have your arms cut off. This is why lost items are left on the ground.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam....Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

It's "Muslim". Your racist ignorance is showing.

LolOloLoL, either my ironic-humor meter is on the fritz or your own more generalized ignorance is showing.

Mus·lim | [muhz-lim] adjective, noun1: of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.

real_dave wrote:

The guy was jailed because he said things that could have lead to national instability similar to that which happened in bahrain. The government simply took steps to protect its national security.

Damage that "could have been caused" is very nebulous compared to the very concrete damage that taking away a man's freedom for years over petty bullshit will cause, let alone the damage it will cause to Kuwait's reputation among the free, civilized world.

If your religious beliefs are so fragmented, fragile and dangerous that 140 characters or less can cause societal breakdown among the followers, it speak volumes of the value of those beliefs.

(to clarify, I consider America to be almost as much of an authoritarian shithole as Kuwait, and am not singling out Islam as dangerous, Christianity is just as bad, but they've mostly allowed themselves to be dragged into the 21st century, albeit kicking and screaming)

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam....Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

It's "Muslim". Your racist ignorance is showing.

LolOloLoL, either my ironic-humor meter is on the fritz or your own more generalized ignorance is showing.

Mus·lim | [muhz-lim] adjective, noun1: of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.

Anyway, why do I disdain this word so much? When people, Muslims or non-Muslims, use this word, often times they are NOT referring to the tenets and mandates promulgated by the Prophet and expounded upon in the Qur’an and the Sunnah; rather, they are referencing particular geographical locations, principally the Middle East the South East Asia. This conflation makes for some asinine conclusions about Islam and Muslims.Let me give a few examples to illustrate my point.

Though, I may have overreacted to his use of wording. It's a response to the people who use terms like "Islamist" instead of "Muslim".

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam....Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

It's "Muslim". Your racist ignorance is showing.

LolOloLoL, either my ironic-humor meter is on the fritz or your own more generalized ignorance is showing.

Mus·lim | [muhz-lim] adjective, noun1: of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.

You're an idiot...

Ok then, you're a spectacular fucking idiot.What, did I think Muslim and Islam were two different concepts or something even more idiotic than that?

edit: terming something as Islamic rather than Muslim is perfectly valid, and makes more sense to use the same word root, and yes your post did come across like someone who didn't know they referred to the same thing

Living in an Islamic Country makes people paranoid. It is the way of Islam....Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a Islamic countries like Kuwait. You have to be careful who you tick off since that can wind you up in prison, like that unlucky fellow.

It's "Muslim". Your racist ignorance is showing.

LolOloLoL, either my ironic-humor meter is on the fritz or your own more generalized ignorance is showing.

Mus·lim | [muhz-lim] adjective, noun1: of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.

You're an idiot...

Ok then, you're a spectacular fucking idiot.What, did I think Muslim and Islam were two different concepts or something even more idiotic than that?

edit: terming something as Islamic rather than Muslim is perfectly valid, and makes more sense to use the same word root

No, it literally isn't, however you are an idiot, in fact. I edited a link into my prior post that nags about it.

Ok then, you're a spectacular fucking idiot....edit: terming something as Islamic rather than Muslim is perfectly valid, and makes more sense to use the same word root

No, it literally isn't, however you are an idiot, in fact. I edited a link into my prior post that nags about it.

It's isn't!? We should alert the Oxford Dictionary immediately in that case, as they've been peddling the misconception that the word Islamic is valid for ages! Thank fuck for you, your blogger friend and your private definitions of the English language!

Oh wait... no, you're just talking shit. These countries have Islam as their de facto and sometimes official state-religion, hence describing them as Islamic is perfectly valid, unless you care to post a link to prove me wrong, but please, this time something more authoritative than some random blogger who agrees with you... you drooling fucking idiot

PS: The comments on this page are as nasty and narrow-minded as usual. Would it be too much trouble to verify the things you hear before echoing them.

I'm an atheist, and frankly I agree with you that a lot of comments on page are very narrow minded. We should have more tolerance for each other.

OT, here's a story I love. During an unusually long cold winter, up in a high top monastery, the monks are freezing and they're running out of fire wood. Then one monk took an axe to a wooden statue of Buddha to make firewood. The other monks were shocked and tried to stop him. To which he asked them, "Is this piece of wood Buddha? This is nothing more then a relic that help you concentrate on Buddha's teachings. And that if you hold this value more than what it is, you have failed to understand Buddha's teachings.

Raptor wrote:

real_dave wrote:

The guy was jailed because he said things that could have lead to national instability similar to that which happened in bahrain. The government simply took steps to protect its national security.

That strongly suggests the country has underlying problems that are so significant that jailing a twitter user isn't going to prevent, let alone solve them.

Of course, that part of the world have underlying problems that need addressing. However, you must start somewhere...it's helpful if stop both sides from spewing non-sense and inciting each other. It will create an environment where both sides can calmly think about it.

sporkme wrote:

Vishnu sez: "So many arms, so few orifices to fist!"

You're so bad and funny...

RE: The Budda story, this exactly why I despise muslim fanatics. In the riots following the accidental burning of the Koran 19 Afghans died, 55 were wounded, and 4 US servicemen were murdered. A US soldier murders 16 Afghans and no riots. What does thet tell you? To these people 16 lives are worth less than paper and ink. And that the paper and ink are more important that the words, beliefs and teachings contained on them, like the prohibition on killing other muslims.

Ok then, you're a spectacular fucking idiot....edit: terming something as Islamic rather than Muslim is perfectly valid, and makes more sense to use the same word root

No, it literally isn't, however you are an idiot, in fact. I edited a link into my prior post that nags about it.

It's isn't!? We should alert the Oxford Dictionary immediately in that case, as they've been peddling the misconception that the word Islamic is valid for ages! Thank fuck for you, your blogger friend and your private definitions of the English language!

Oh wait... no, you're just talking shit. These countries have Islam as their de facto and sometimes official state-religion, hence describing them as Islamic is perfectly valid, unless you care to post a link to prove me wrong, but please, this time something more authoritative than some random blogger who agrees with you... you drooling fucking idiot

RE: The Budda story, this exactly why I despise muslim fanatics. In the riots following the accidental burning of the Koran 19 Afghans died, 55 were wounded, and 4 US servicemen were murdered. A US soldier murders 16 Afghans and no riots. What does thet tell you? To these people 16 lives are worth less than paper and ink. And that the paper and ink are more important that the words, beliefs and teachings contained on them, like the prohibition on killing other muslims.

American soldiers have been killing their family, friends, and neighbors for a decade now, it should be obvious to you that their rage response to such atrocities has become somewhat jaded, leading to a morose anger response to yet another tragedy, as opposed to the savage hysterics you might be envisioning. On top of that, they very much recognize insanity and mental illness and that people can do things they are not fully responsible for, which played a probable factor in this situation and its response.

Only recently have Americans burned a huge stack of books containing the "literal" words of their God on occupied land, thus the intense outrage. As for killing other Muslims, that started long before any Qur'an burning, so it is disingenuous to act like that is something unique to the situation.

I only bring it up because I tend to see mainly bigots using "Islamic" and then "Islamists" because it sounds scary like "terrorists" and "Muslim" is just too mundane sounding today with the President even pronouncing it correctly. Might just be selective observation and faulty inference, but there you go.